96 Holden Combo has 44kw? Kidding???

[klawsterfobik]

We have a 98 Barina, 1.4L MPFI with a 5sp manual.

I think its a good little car, we also have a Combo at work, and for what you described, with the advertising, its fantastic. Great mass of white space for any sign writing that you need.

If its a work vehicle, does it really matter if you can't get to 100kph in 10 seconds?

The only things to be wary of are being conscious that its only a 1.4l engine (I went from a 5L), and that they're prone to blowing head gaskets.

[falconboy]

Originally Posted by klawsterfobik

and for what you described, with the advertising, its fantastic. Great mass of white space for any sign writing that you need.

Exactly. I think they are perfect. I'm very hesitant. I think if I see a good low k one at a good price I'll at least test drive one. Ideal for the advertising, not necessarily a good car to buy though from the sounds of it.

[TadKa]

One of our partner Businesses had a Combo until recently. It was left in the yard and some idiots tried to steal it but it didn't have enough go to drive through the gate so they torched it. what a shame.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by klawsterfobik

We have a 98 Barina, 1.4L MPFI with a 5sp manual.

I think its a good little car, we also have a Combo at work, and for what you described, with the advertising, its fantastic. Great mass of white space for any sign writing that you need.

If its a work vehicle, does it really matter if you can't get to 100kph in 10 seconds?

The only things to be wary of are being conscious that its only a 1.4l engine (I went from a 5L), and that they're prone to blowing head gaskets.

We have an 00 Barina (one of the last in that shape), 1.4L 5 speed and I wouldn't call it gutless at all, actually, had quite a few victories against P platers in those boxy pulsars etc. Maybe the one you guys had was a dud.

We have had no issues mechanically whatsoever, its great, other than the Holden badges. Going from a falcon to the barina I quite enjoy skimming through round abouts..LOL

But like any car, get the latest model you can, I know these Barina's (Corsa's) had issues with the earlier ones.

And to top it off we get 600-650 k's per tank easy, from 42L I think.

[Bad Bird]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

i was referring to the chev LS series of motors, built with a SOHC and 2 valves per cylinder. my 15 year old ED XR8 has that. and it does a better job.

Yes, your ED does much better than an LS7 Z06 Corvette...

Neither your ED Windsor nor the LS-series are SOHC...

[klawsterfobik]

Originally Posted by Polyal

I wouldn't call it gutless at all, actually, had quite a few victories against P platers in those boxy pulsars etc.

And to top it off we get 600-650 k's per tank easy, from 42L I think.

My only real gripe is with first gear, its just too short. So I don't know how I would go racing it, but as I said before, its not what they were built for.

Fuel economy is great too.. ~7.5L/100

Keep it serviced, and drive it within its limits and i'm sure it should be a good car for you.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

Yes, your ED does much better than an LS7 Z06 Corvette...

Neither your ED Windsor nor the LS-series are SOHC...

Maybe so, but being one who obviously suffers from a "lack of public education" I am interested in 388cube_edxr8 explaining what 15 yearold parity technology he is referring to when comparing the "bloated" 50kw/litre VE LS2 to the 34kW/litre ED XR8 5.0.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by falconboy

I do mobile computer repairs for a crust and was looking for a small, cheap vehicle that can be a moving avertising billboard. The Holden Combo of around mid 90's is ideal. Yeah yeah, hold on guys, if Ford did a similar style of vehicle I'd consider it ok!

HOWEVER, the wifes 97 Honda civic has about 88kw apparently, which is ok as a second car/shopping trolley here in Sydney, which is its intended use (she bought it before we met!), but upon researching a 96 Holden Combo they have a whopping 44kw. You read correctly, 44kw - half the Honda. They have got to be kidding right?

Anyone owned one? Willing to admit to it? Are they as bad as the rated 44kw might indicate or are there 'mitigating circumstances' that make a Combo actually usable without wanting to drive over the closest cliff each time you use it?

Any other suggested alternatives? I can't think of any other than the Citroen Berlingo, but they are a bit newer, a bit pricey, still only 57kw (It looks like I won't get something similar with power) and I expect parts are typical imported european prices.

In the past I've removed a few bits 'n bobs off one of the Combos at the wreckers for use in disparate projects. They don't seem to have bad build quality. I'm not sure a peak power figure is relevant when it comes to what is basically a bread van. It could be that it's cammed not to be peaky and deliver greater area under the curve..... I don't know, just guessing.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by Wally

Maybe so, but being one who obviously suffers from a "lack of public education" I am interested in 388cube_edxr8 explaining what 15 yearold parity technology he is referring to when comparing the "bloated" 50kw/litre VE LS2 to the 34kW/litre ED XR8 5.0.

dont mean to be rude mate but do the maths. 388ci is not 5.0L. obvioulsy it wont out perform a new motor in stock form, so its modified. my maths is not perfect but 388 cubes is somewhere near 6.3L. please feel free to correct me if im wrong.

[Wally]

Oh I see, we are supposed to be comparing the superiority of your ED XR8 351 stroker to the stock LS2? Or do we take a 6.5l stroker, whack a turbo on it and compare apples to 388s?

[Polyal]

This site surprises me sometimes, why is there talk of a ed, V8 or stroker in a Barina thread..LOL

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by Wally

Oh I see, we are supposed to be comparing the superiority of your ED XR8 351 stroker to the stock LS2? Or do we take a 6.5l stroker, whack a turbo on it and compare apples to 388s?

im sorry im not sure what you are talking about. my ED is naturally aspirated.

[Bad Bird]

No, he is saying that it is a bit silly to compare your modified Windsor to a stock LSx. We're all adults here; even if we dislike Holden the LS-series are damn fine engines.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

i was referring to the chev LS series of motors, built with a SOHC and 2 valves per cylinder. my 15 year old ED XR8 has that. and it does a better job.

all the commondores of late seem to be just a little bloated, more so with the VE.

i have seen some photos/renderings from holden on what the new commondore will look like on 2010, all they've done is put the front lights and grille from a falcon onto a VE.

the point is, every ford ever made has been better than the holden at the time. (some would argue that the EA is an exception)

back on point, dont buy a combo, for the simple rule that generally, if something is used for what it was never intended to be used for, it will break. barinas weren't meant pull weight, so loaded up it will run hot and have engine failure as my mate has experienced, and the brakes will wear faster as someone has said.

aviod the combo at all costs, unless you plan to put a V6 in and upgrade the brakes. and suspension. and tyres. after that cost, you may as well have just bought an au wagon, which would still be better anyway.

How old are you, 10? Do you even read the drivel that you write before you post it?

[388cube_edxr8]

well i wouldnt necessarily call them damn fine, but fine to do the job of putting a smile or your face nonetheless.

my question is, why does my 1994 302 windsor with less than $2k put into it make more power than some of the LSx motors? i just dont think GM tries that hard anymore. well, not as hard as they could.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by stevz

How old are you, 10? Do you even read the drivel that you write before you post it?

yes genius im 10 with a V8 falcon.

are you serious?

[Wally]

Nice going if you can knock over an LS2. Mind telling us your uprated 302 bore, stroke and rods? Is it 4.030", 3.80" and 6.25"? I hear it's a pretty good combination.

[388cube_edxr8]

not sure of the rods, my mate did most of the work.

i didnt want to bore it out because i wanted to retain as much block integrity as possible, so its running the stock bore (or very close to it) with a 3.8x stroke. i was worried we would have to put some deck plates on and longer rods to stop the bottom of the pistons from hitting the crank weights but we are using a 351 crank which has smaller counterweights and it seems to be running alright.

its one hell of a sleeper tho, its still got the factory paint and exterior. i like it.

[XR6_190]

Maybe you could consider some other things, if you don't want a full size van or Wagon, Howabout something like an older model small or midsize wagon, something like a Mazda 626, or an older shape Camry (back when they were doing wagons) or even a Corolla wagon, if there is one in your price range. That way you still have a proper car the rest of the time.

Otherwise you could probably look at something like one of those older Suzuki vans, or even a Toyota townace van. Just a few things that you may not of considered. Then again, if you want something that will stand out, why not try and find an original Mini van. Might cost a bit more, but would be well worth it.

Originally Posted by Polyal

This site surprises me sometimes, why is there talk of a ed, V8 or stroker in a Barina thread..LOL

Good Point there Polyal.

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

well i wouldnt necessarily call them damn fine, but fine to do the job of putting a smile or your face nonetheless.

my question is, why does my 1994 302 windsor with less than $2k put into it make more power than some of the LSx motors? i just dont think GM tries that hard anymore. well, not as hard as they could.

What does that have to do with a Combo van? Seriously, if you wanna prove how big your dick is, I don't think that this is the correct place to do it.

[fairmont1998]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

honestly, who's idea was it to put a live rear axle in a front wheel drive car? :

You haven't researched many FWDs before making that statement, have you.....

[Falcon Coupe]

I'm trying to recall the topic but fail to remember after the Windsor vs LS1 debate....

Oh that's right, the Holden Combo with 44kw.

[RG]

Oh look, a quality thread.

[XR6_190]

Originally Posted by RG

Oh look, a quality thread.

Is it just me, or are those 'Quality Threads' getting harder to come buy in the last month or so?

[Wally]

These specs indicate it's 66kW instead of the 44kW quoted

Engine location: Front, transverse
Displacement: 1364 ccm (83.23 cubic inches)
Engine type: Inline, 4 cylinder
Max power: 90.00 PS (66 kW or 89 HP) at 5600 Rev. per min.
Max torque: 125.00 Nm (12.7 kgf-m or 92.2 ft.lbs) at 4000 Rev. per min

[falconboy]

Where were those from and what model. Mine were from carsales research (who knows how accurate) and for a 96 model. The later ones are more powerful.

[XR6_190]

Are you sure that is the '96 model there Wally? Not that I doubt you, but that sounds like a lot for a 1.4 from that time period. If that is correct, then you would think that would have to be plenty of kilowatts for a small van.

[itchy brother]

Originally Posted by flappist

The XL Falcon developed 67kw and it won Bathurst (I think there is a big there is a hill there somewhere)

Cortina GT won the next year, 59kw........

The cortina had bob janes special tire and wheel combo though which had the effect of almost doubling power output! !!

[Wally]

Originally Posted by XR6_190

Are you sure that is the '96 model there Wally? Not that I doubt you, but that sounds like a lot for a 1.4 from that time period. If that is correct, then you would think that would have to be plenty of kilowatts for a small van.

No, you're right they are the 2007 specs


2004 Holden:

Displacement: 1598 ccm (97.51 cubic inches)
Engine type: Inline, 4 cylinder
Max power: 87.7 PS (65 kW or 86 HP) at 5400 Rev. per min.
Max torque: 133.00 Nm (13.6 kgf-m or 98.1 ft.lbs) at 3000 Rev. per min.
Fuel system: Injection
Valves per cylinder: 2
Gearbox: Manual, 5-speed

2005 Holden:

Displacement: 1598 ccm (97.51 cubic inches)
Engine type: Inline, 4 cylinder
Max power: 87.00 PS (64 kW or 86 HP) at 5400 Rev. per min.
Max torque: 133.00 Nm (13.6 kgf-m or 98.1 ft.lbs) at 3000 Rev. per min.
Fuel system: Injection
Valves per cylinder: 2
Gearbox: Manual, 5-speed

Others:

2003 Opel:


Engine location: Front, transverse
Displacement: 1596 ccm (97.39 cubic inches)
Engine type: Inline, 4 cylinder
Max power: 90.00 PS (66 kW or 89 HP) at 5800 Rev. per min.
Max torque: 138.00 Nm (14.1 kgf-m or 101.8 ft.lbs) at 3000 Rev. per min.
Compression: 9.6:1
Bore x stroke: 79.0 x 81.5 mm (3.1 x 3.2 inches)
Fuel system: Injection
Valves per cylinder: 2
Fuel control: Overhead cam (OHC)
Lubrication system: Wet sump
Cooling system: Liquid
Gearbox: Manual, 5-speed


1996 Opel:

Displacement: 1389 ccm (84.76 cubic inches)
Engine type: Inline, 4 cylinder
Max torque: 104.00 Nm (10.6 kgf-m or 76.7 ft.lbs) at 3000 Rev. per min.
Fuel system: Injection
Gearbox: Manual, 5-speed


etc

So it seems they managed to get the 1.4 upto the 1.6 peak power output by 2007.

[Wally]

https://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xc...car_review.htm

Engine Type 4 cylinder, in line, SOHC
Capacity in Litres 1.4 L
Induction Single point electronic injection
Fuel Recommendation ULP
Claimed max. power 44 kW at 5200 rpm
Claimed max. torque 103 Nm at 2800 rpm
Power (kW per 1000kg) 31.4 kW/litre

[eb2fairmont]

what are you all whinging about. 44kw is plenty to run a computer with.







Get a skoda roomster....ugly as hell but actually useful. Make sure you get the 1.9 diesel. Plenty of hot up gear from the US available for it. Easy to get over 200 HP with a turbo, and injectors.

And before you ask...yeah its only 200hp....at 4000 rpm (think of the torque ~400 nm)